Forum people,

There are things even Christians have trouble discussing because of the emotion attached to them. One of those subjects is whether Christians can kill for the government.

As I think back on the activities of the early Christians I am made to wonder if they would have killed for anyone or anything. This subject fits in with what Chris brought up about agape *love*. If this love we are to have for all people, not only our fellow Christians but even for our enemies, where would that place us in this *klling* business?

For instance, there are Christians in all nations (so far as we know.) Is it right for our Christian boys to kill one of *their* Christian boys in battle? And what about our Christian boys killing non-Christian boys and forever taking from them the chance of coming to Christ and having a hope of salvation?

One might think that what he does for the government is not the same as his personal activity. But isn't anything we do on this earth our responsibility? One scripture we might think about is of our giving our bodies as living sacrifices to God. If our bodies are the temple of God then aren't the bodies of Christians on the other side of the guns also temples of God?

Do you think if we thought about our purpose here on earth (pilgrims) that we might view the killing of others a little differently?

-- Anonymous, November 12, 1999

Answers

I don't think that Christians ought to be killing. However, Romans 13 talks about the government being the servant of God, and bearing the sword for punishment. The sword was not for decoration, it was for killing if needed. The government is used by God for punishing the wicked just as Babylon was used to punish Israel for their sins and idolatry.

It is a very tough question that must be answered by every Christian or even every human being. If you can't do this, then you should be excused from the fighting lines, but someone has to defend our freedom. Christians are to be gentle, but not door mats for wickedness. I don't believe that turning the other cheek was life threatening situations, but simply insults. A slap is very different from person coming at you with a weapon of some kind. What would have happened to the free world if Hitler had not been stopped? Yours and my freedom of worship would have been restricted greatly, if not taken away. Hope this helps.

Take care Nelta

-- Anonymous, November 23, 1999

Hello Roy and all,

I would like to agree with you that a person's belief about *killing* is an individual matter. That would be true of any other subject because God looks at individuals and holds each accountable.

This would also be true of whether baptism is for the remission of sins or is for the purpose of being accepted in a *church*, OR if it is a symbol showing someone has already been saved.

Everyone must decide....however, what happens if he/she decides (individually) and what is decided in not according to scripture?

-- Anonymous, November 23, 1999

Nelta,

I doubt that baptism is in the same boat with going to war and fighting. God commands us to be buried with Christ in immersion, so that the blood of the Lamb can cover our sins by His righteousness. Obedience is not up for discussion in this matter, but our freedom to fight or not is. Being immersed into Christ is not a freedom issue.

roy He does not order us to battle in war time, the government does.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 1999

Hi Nelta - I agree with your post - this has always been a matter of concern for me also.

Why isn't this as simple as say - let's say - hmmmmm - where could we go for the answer to that? Hmmmmm. I know, let's look in the Bible!! What a concept! (Ha - just a little kidding around here with this more than serious matter.)

Great idea - ok - oh yeah, here's these Commandments. Let's see, Commandment #1 says "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". Wow - there's no small print under those words (like:"except under certain conditions") - just goes on to the next Commandment - I guess that must be what it means, do you think??

Nelta I think we don't, most of the time, give much thought to our real purpose here on earth, as you said. Which is to learn to love our neighbor as ourselves, to learn to have unconditional loving relationships with one another. To BMLJED (that's Be More Like Jesus Every Day). You don't teach a child to love by knocking him down and hurting him if he does something wrong.

If we truly went into deep prayer and meditation as One People (People and Govt and Church) Under God, then we (through connection with God) would resolve strife, as the upliftment of prayer to God would be so powerful that He would "work miracles" to protect us - we should never have to fight for freedom by killing others. This is man's way - not His. This is man's way of not turning over the control to God - isn't it? We've never tried it "His" way because we've been too afraid - we have not had enough faith."A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" If we tried His way then wouldn't we truly be doing His Work and we would be given abundant life (I mean we wouldn't then have to be killed) so that we could keep it up? maybe? What do you think? We should only ask that His Will Be Done and then BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY! Now there's the tricky part! Blessings

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Hello genesa and all:

Thanks for responding to both my posts, Genesa. I have been thinking a lot lately about how involved we should be in giving our bodies as living sacrifices. Maybe in the year 2000 I can do a better job than in recent years.

Love to all,

Nelta

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

This is a subject where there is much misunderstanding. Nelta and Genesa, you come off sounding like leftover 60s anti-war activists. I wonder reading your posts if that is what colors your opinion, rather than scripture.

Can a believer/godly person be a soldier or warrior, defending his homeland? Scripturally speaking, the answer is yes. If you don't believe this, then you claim the scriptures to be false. Why? Because the history of the Jewish people (God's CHOSEN people, don't forget) is a pretty graphic testimony to their military exploits. Abraham, chosen personally by God to found the Jewish race, was a warrior, fighting to reclaim what was stolen by bandit nations (Genesis 14:8-17). Moses, God's chosen prophet, led the nation of Israel in a military formation through the wilderness while leading them to the promised land. He directed battle with his general, Joshua (Exodus 17:8-14). Joshua succeeded Moses as Commander-In-Chief of the Jewish nation, and led them into the promised land, where they participated in many campaigns and battles (almost the whole book of Joshua). Please note: God Himself DIRECTED the military overthrow and occupation of the land of Palestine. I could go on and on. The Judges were warriors. David, the "man after God's own heart," was a great warrior.

I think part of the confusion stems from two misunderstandings. The first is from faulty exegesis, and how you want to interpret the word "kill." I think the word "murder" is the more correct translation. God is against murder. But God also authorizes the state (Romans 13:1-5), which He does support, to raise armies to defend themselves against invaders.

Why is any of this necessary? Because of the second misunderstanding. Standing armies and police forces are necessary because of the fallen nature of man. War is in the sinful nature of all human beings (James 4:1-2). War is basically the covetous nature of fallen man on a national scale.

We must be careful not to confuse the 60s (and leftover) anti-war rhetoric with anything biblical. The entire 60s/Vietnam anti-war movement was not based on anything scriptural, but on secular humanism. The 60s anti-war movement was not actually against war: it was a rebellion against the society. At the heart of most protesters was not a love of country, but a flirtation with communism or socialism. All in all, it was un-godly, un-biblical, and totally human rebellion.

The end result of this way of thinking leads away from the God of the Bible. Why? .If the anti-war line of thinking is true, then the Bible contains contradictions. How can the God who commands us to not "kill" later in the same book command people to fight and destroy another nation? In the next two chapters after God is alleged to say "don't kill (any human being, by assumption)" He commands capital punishment for a wide range of offenses. Hmmm. It starts to seem like God can't make up His mind, doesn't it?

Anti-war sentiment is an area where I believe a personal preference taints biblical exegesis. If you as an individual want to be anti-war, that is fine - you have that privilege. But don't try to twist the Bible to make your claim. The evidence is not there.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

To doc and all:

First of all we have to distinquish between the N.T. and the Old Testament teaching. The Jewish people were God's chosen through whom He would bring forth the Christ. When Christ came on the scene all that changed. We are all under the law of Christ. Where back then the Jewish people were His nation, today Christians are His spiritual community (nation.) Weapons to be used today (by Christians) are spiritual weapons as far as the Christian is concerned.

In the O.T. God did not tell His people to love their enemies. He directed them to kill. Today it is not so. Love reigns suppreme under Christ. The original question on this thread was can Christians kill Christians or even their enemies? Love and kill do not mix. We are pilgrams passing through this world as we go down the narrow road to heaven.

In Romans Paul explains what the civil government is to do. It is to punish evil doers...thus capital punishment. However, he did not direct Christians to get involved.

The 60s? I was alive then but had no interest in keeping up with their actions because I was knee deep in bottles and diapers caring for my four children who were all born within a 5 year period.

I got my information out of the scriptures as I realized Christians killing other Christians or their enemies goes against the very purpose of Christ in the world.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

Nelta, you have to follow you line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion. And its disturbing.

Your basic premise seems to be that:

a. The O.T. does not apply to Christians (whether or not you intended to, that is the implication).

b. We are to "love" so as such "killing" is forbidden.

c. Paul's statement on the responsibility of governments is true; however, it does not apply to Christians as executors of that policy.

You have to think this through. Your line of logic ends up with ignoring large portions of the Word of God. Also, Christians are NEVER to be involved in government, and government is left in the hands of the unbelieving. We are to love but never get involved.

Nelta, I respect your opinion, but your thinking, whether you know it or not, is the logic of the world. I do 100% agree that the Christians weapons are to be spiritual. I agree 100% that our mandate is to love as Christ loved. But to blanketly state that Christians are to never bear arms, or to protect their homelands is an erroneous conclusion. As long as sin exists in the world, all human beings must understand that there is a possibility of armed conflict. No where in the Bible is your position supported.

I will openly admit that I am biased. As a 21 year Army veteran, I know the reality of WHY there are wars, and exactly how horrible they can be. I know exactly what happens when people die, which makes the idea of open warfare pretty distasteful to me. But Ive also been to foreign countries and have seen the evils of governments that are not ruled by godly men or women. I am convinced that the sacrifice of my time and the possibility of even my life was exactly Gods will for my life. Because there were people like me serving their country, the tyrants and dictators of the world were not allowed to fully exercise the depravity they are capable of.

I have heard your argument time and time again on three different continents. Unfortunately, it is mouthed by those who have never shared the hardship, and never truly acted out of love (the greater love is sacrificial, John 15:13and yes I know, it must be in context with the previous verse. The two cannot be separated, by me or by you). Each time I have heard this argument it is equally flawed. Pacifism is a dangerous path in this sin filled world. I am fearful though that because you have no point of reference for what I am saying, it will be lost.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

Doc, your reasoning is not lost on me and believe me I have heard from many others just what you are saying. Christ never told His followers to kill another. Can you picture Jesus or His apostles, (or the early Christians, as far as that goes) killing another human being when the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself?

I know this subject has a lot of emotion connected with it. Christ said He wanted our allegiances whether we were in a good safe nation or whether we were under nations such as Cuba. Circumstances do not change the will or the word of God. Until we comprend the difference in the world and the kingdom....the purpose of Christ and the purpose of the world we will remain a waverer..going from the will of God to what we think our duty to the world is. ISTM that makes a person luke-warm.

Nelta

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

As a bit of a disclaimer, anything I said above was meant for SELF DEFENSE, not in indiscriminate killing. That is why there are such things as war crimes: the Judeo-Christian elements of society which view all human beings as valuable souls which cannot be uselessly wasted created international law against unnecessary suffering and destruction (Geneva-Hague Conventions). Since war itself cannot seem to be outlawed, then restraints have to be placed on the destructive tendencies of man.

Actually we are in somewhat of agreement. I agree that IF Christians were doing what they were supposed to be doing, i.e., spreading the love of Christ, being the example of Christ in the world, and loving as Christ loves us, then any form of killing would be unnecessary. However, as I think we all can agree, Christendom through the centuries has miserably failed. I agree, Jesus did not command killing, nor did the Apostles. I personally find that the death and killing done through the centuries (like the Crusades, Inquisition, and Witch Hunts)had nothing to do with Christ at all, but were the inventions of men. Christianity is fundamentally about the redemption of people, not the conquering of them.

I would hate to think that I am putting forth the idea that killing other human beings is "correct." I actually believe the contrary. Human beings are created in the image of God, and have eternal souls. This makes people ultimately valuable just because they exist. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the fallen world we live in, life is not an either/or proposition. The answer is not kill/don't kill. The correct answer is that while killing is prohibited, there are exceptions. This is the precendent set by God Himself. This is why we need the Old Testament still. Without this precendent and guidance we are left to our own whims.

Bottom line as I see it: Killing without reason for anyone (Christian or non-Christian) is forbidden. However, for certain specific instances by specifically identified persons in a specific authority, it is allowed.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

Dr. Dewey - I'm glad you at least added that disclaimer! It was nice that you also admitted you are biased - a lot would deny that they are.

I would like to say that I, as Nelta, in the 60's was far removed from whatever was going on in the way of anti-war movements, etc. I lived in Germany part of that time, my husband was in the Army - our daughter was born there so I also was focused on child-rearing, Army life, and then went back home to Missouri - still far removed from what was "going on" in the world at that time in history and actually very naive about it all.

I guess one obvious question in reference to the words "kill" and "murder" - I mean, I see the point you are trying to make - but I still, in my heart, feel there is no difference, when one is intentionally doing it to another. I'm also just stating my opinion - which to me I get by studying scripture - but I won't argue about it. But of course, I know I'm not supposed to go by my "feelings" as someone else pointed out on another thread.

I also wonder then, if there are "exceptions" to that commandment, are there exceptions to the others? In your opinion? Surely not.

I do agree with Nelta that we must decide which purpose it is that we intend to live for and not waver. The purpose of the teachings of Christ, or "worldly" purpose? War is always about money and control of others - is it not? And freedom, you might add. But no one can take our Belief from our heart - our true freedom.

There is a book titled "Discovering The Mind of A Woman" by Ken Nair.You can probably find it in any Christian bookstore. "Most men do not realize that everyone has a spirit, and that they must be careful not to wound or damage the spirits of others ..... Wounding the spirit of a person .... is a good way to crush and inwardly destroy a person, as the writer of Proverbs reminds us in Proverbs 18:14 'The spirit of a man will sustain him in sickness, but who can bear a broken spirit?'"

I realize I am going a little off this thread - however it almost seems that some on this board are dedicated to the above - I certainly feel my spirit has been attacked. ".... verbal uncertainties have grown as a result of her husband's [a man's] not knowing how to tap into his wife's [a woman's] spirit. He doesn't know how to listen to his wife's [a woman's] words and realize that she is communicating much more than mere words. He needs to listen to her heart and understand what it means to affirm her as a person, as Christ would." Blessings to all.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

Genesa -

I appreciate your counter-point. No comment I make here is meant to be personal or threatening. Since I got beat up on a different thread for being a Baptist (said while chuckling) I guess I can throw in another Baptist distinctive: priesthood of believers. This "doctrine" entitles you to read the Bible and make up your own mind -- there are very few "party lines." My frustration on these boards is that in order to keep the threads "conversational" extended dissertations are not reasonable, and as such all points of a concept may not be revealed.

In reference to my comment on the difference between "kill" and murder," what I have been trying to get at is to keep the ideas in context with what is overall being presented. We cannot always "proof-text" a quote to bolster a particular viewpoint without making exegetical errors. Specifically, Exodus 20:13 must be seen in the context of the entire book of Exodus. The "Ten Commandments" are not bullet comments which can be taken by themselves. God Himself expands on the meaning in chapters 21 and 22. In these chapters, the sanctity and value of human life is shown in the laws relating to specific crimes against others. And it is specific too. However, there are exceptions.

Let's look specifically at Exodus 21:12. Anyone who strikes and kills a man shall be put to death. But then follow to verse 13: "*However,* if he does not do it intentionally" God provides mercy. Verse 14, on the other hand, gives an even stronger 'however': if the murder is deliberate, there is no mercy, and the perpetrator will pay for the crime with his/her own life.

I think the problem here is the conflict we see between law and mercy. Law is rigid, black and white, no exceptions. Mercy on the other hand provides the exceptions. In my world view, I prefer to understand a God of mercy who provided the way out through His Son. Understanding our fallen natures, He allowed "judgment calls."

This principle is in Exodus too. Exodus 21:23-25 states this, although we miss the real point: "But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, butn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Now, this is not intended to be a "checklist" for revenge -- it is the principle of the punishment fitting the crime. This principle is only for crimes against society and other human beings. It does not apply spiritually, because as we know, there is no sliding scale for sin. Sin is sin, period. But in the natural world in which we live, we must wisely pass judgment, and God has provided the principles for it.

Hopefully I haven't totally confused you here! This is where I am coming from on this though.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2000

Technically, as any Jew worth his salt will tell you, the word "Kill" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" means murder, not killing of any kind. If it meant all forms of killing, even the Jewish state would have been prohibited from participating in wars, executing capitol punishment, etc., which God *ordained* and *commanded* them to do in certain instances.

Paul says in Romans that the governments are given "the sword" by God to mete out His divine justice. This includes wars against countries which are in God's disfavor. Of course, we cannot always see God's plan in these wars. And I will agree, wars are a terrible evil. But there is a "lesser of two evils" situation here. For instance, it would have been far more evil for America and her allies to just sit back and let Hitler crush half the world and slaughter millions of Jews than to take up arms, even as Christians, and go to war to stop him.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2000